Yeah I know upwards to 10 dollars for a micro-transaction of a decade old game sounds rough. Yes, I realize you can illegally acquire these games for free. Yes, I realize that some people would rather get them on eBay in cartridge form *remembers getting red in the face blowing on those damn things* for cheaper (although with the overpriced S&H charges that frequent those auctions, I wouldn't call them cheaper).

Yesterday I clocked in a few extra hours on Zelda on my Wii. But it wasn't Twilight Princess I was playing...it was the good old NES game that started it all. My thumb on the abnormally-but-comfortably large D-pad of the Classic controller and the other one tapping those buttons that let me attack...it was good times, reminiscent of the fun I had with my NES back in the day.

It was about 4am by then, the time had passed admittedly quicker than I was expecting (I had to get up at 7:45!) so I headed to bed. Instead of pressing up and select at the item menu, I pressed the home key and went back to the menu. Today I'll resume exactly where I left off, instead of at a set save location with a set number of hearts, something I would have had to have left my console on overnight to do in the past (which wasn't an uncommon procedure back in the day, but it basically means you couldn't take a break from that game and play another).

Granted emulators have had this ability for awhile, I got more into playing LoZ on my TV with the classic controller than I have playing it on an emulator with a gamepad, a lot more into it, and I had a lot more fun. Exactly why...I couldn't say...perhaps it's simply because the game plays better when it's played as it was meant to.

A few days ago I was reliving Mario 64 with the controls I would expect from an Nintendo 64 game (actually better, since the analog is better), not a control setup I would have to suffer through on a computer. That same day I was able to experience the awesomeness of Gunstar Heros for the first time - as the game was meant to be played - on a console (while playing 2-player as well!). I played the original Mario Bros. Classic with my girlfriend in two-player. I kept working at beating Super Mario Bros. without losing a single life. I played Bonk's Adventure for the first time.

I do not regret spending those fourty dollars. Yes I realize "hard" compilations may have more bang for the buck, but I generally only enjoy a game or two on average out of those anyways, at least with the VC I get to choose which ones I want, and which I don't, and choose them as I wish, as if I was in a compilation cafeteria.

I look forward to other stellar content that I missed in the past to be available for download. The VC has extended the Wii's library as far as I'm concerned, I'm sure everybody missed out on a few classics back in the day. I've found that playing them as they were meant to be played brings out more of the...er..."magic" than playing them on a PC, or on a handheld.

Kudos to Nintendo. I just wish games came out twice a week instead of just once :P

The generational gaps that were crossed earlier aren't very possible nowadays because graphical upgrading is hitting a plateau, which is why the 360 and the PS3 have opted for HD, since that's the best way to show a "huge difference" between last generation and this one.

The main problem with that is the lowish HD adoption rate, but what other choice would they have? They could have used the entire bulk of those processors in there and did some amazing things, but they felt that using some 1/2+ of it simply to produce HD-Graphics would produce better visuals. Sure, they would've looked better than last gen regardless but not even close to the jumps between other gens. Visual differences vs. technical differences is by far more of an uphill battle than it was previously. My question is what they're going to do next gen to achieve the same difference, since both support 1080p output right now.

I think the gap between even handhelds and consoles are closing because of that plateau, and will be reflected in the future. Once casuals think that their handheld games have better graphics than their consoles, and instead would rather hook their handhelds up to their TVs (not a strange notion, IMO), consoles will be dead IMO, consumed by the almighty handheld. Yes, that's presumptuous, but I can't say that I can't see it happening, with handhelds only about 1 and a half gens behind as-is.

Four Hundred and Ninety Nine Dollars for the low grade version in short(er) supply

Five Hundred and Ninety Nine Dollars for the premium version, which is disproportionately higher in supply

To date, the Xbox 360 hasn't had an overly impressive sales record, even in it's key regions. I'm going to have to assume that Microsoft was hoping for a PS2-style sales boost when releasing they're console a year early (ala Sony last gen), but it's being outsold by a handheld, the DS. Considering it's low grade and premium are $200 dollars cheaper than the rival versions of the PS3, that's not a good sign.

It can be argued that Sony's low grade offers more than the 360s premium. It has the ability to play Blu-Ray media, which a player alone costs around 1000 dollars. Sony rightfully learned from it's DVD playback success with the Playstation 2.

This argumentatively make the PS3 a steal if you want it for the Blu-Ray player, and I'm sure there will be a select group who will desire it. More power to them, Sony is doing them a favor.

The problem is that the Blu-Ray disc is untested in the marketplace, and for the time it has been available it's sales have been sparse. It is being developed by Sony in tandem with some other companies and they are essentially promoting their own product alongside of the Playstation 3. Yes, it isn't just a coincidence that you're thinking of the PSP, and it's UMD Movies. It's the same concept, and could very possibly lead to the same end.

Given the factors, if Blu-Ray and UMD were released at the same time, UMD would probably be the one more likely to succeed. It's portable format has less competition in the market, and fitting a movie on a small disc is a new concept, similar to VHS vs. DVD. The concept is appealing, and in theory would have the wings to expand much more than it has in reality.

The other subject, Blu-Ray, is a step up from another up and coming, the HD DVD, and it's possible that a company could step up from the Blu-Ray in just as much time. But they're developing for a market in which there is little demand at this point in time. In order to really see the difference one would have to have an HD-TV capable of a 720p resolution, or to properly see the difference they'd need a 1080 capable HD-TV, which is even more expensive than the former. Considering the low amount of HD-TVs in households, it's not a surprise there is so little demand.

Yes, I've read the "Sales of HDTVs expected to boost 70% this holiday season!" crap, but considering the technology has been around since the 1990s and sales are still hardly more than a trickle 70% more of nothing is nothing, and I'm not impressed.

Also keep in mind that HD-DVD players sell for $499 (the price of the "core" PS3), or I should say, try to sell for $499 dollars, but isn't being met with open arms by the consumer. However, the much cheaper DVD players with upconversion are being welcomed by those with HD-TVs by a much larger number. This either points to the fact that the target consumers are simply dragging their feet with buying more expensive discs to replace the ones in their collection, or that they simply don't think the cost is worth it when all they see is "a somewhat prettier picture" that is in their eyes "on the same kind of disc". The average consumer thinks a gigabyte is what happens when you put half of a hogie in your mouth before chewing.

That leaves the mass appeal of the PS3 to be first and foremost a gaming system.

Microsoft already has the one-up on games and exclusives, the two true driving forces behind the sales of a system (with a heavy emphasis on exclusives). The Playstation 3 will be launching with an impressive 21-odd games, however, only five of them will be exclusive. And out of those five, only one is getting hype.

However, in the future, a few third parties are supposed to be churning out some stunning exclusives on the PS3. Metal Gear Solid 4 looks extremely impressive and you know Square Enix has a new FF up their sleeve.

Unfortunately, those games generally only woo the core gamer. The top five selling games of the Playstation 2 were two Gran Turismo titles and the three Grand Theft Auto titles. Three of the five is of a franchise that will be available on the cheaper Xbox 360 on day 1 of it's release, and, as previously mentioned, the 360 already has a growing library at it's disposal.

Third parties were the force behind the PS2, and third parties are loyal only to their wallets. Exclusives have gone non-exclusive at the drop of a hat (look at Assassin's Creed), and if the PS3 doesn't have a good launch (the most optimistic analysts decree it will pick up later on) you can kiss much of that exclusivity goodbye.

All that said, something the PS3 has is that it is, pretty much, going to be future proof for awhile. The problem there, is that you're going to have to pay the price to pay for something from the future. Granted, it won't be long before the average PC has the PS3 trumped in many aspects, and there are already computers today that can outpreform it.

Which brings us back to the price war, which is the central issue. Sony has made some wanton comments regarding their console as essentially the replacement to the home PC. Only the most dedicated Sony fans will believe that the PS3, or any console at that, will be superior to the home computer. The justification of consoles is their price tag. They are by and large cheaper than computers. At first I choked at the price of the premium 360, but I about gagged when they released the price for the PS3.

The PS3 is a step in the wrong direction for consoles. Great graphics are great (duh), but the PS2, even with it's limited hardware, delivered visuals to impress. With 599 dollars I could upgrade my computer and play games that'd put the PS3 to shame. In my opinion, the PS3 would be better recieved as the PS4, let the PS3 be without the fluff and at a reasonable rate.

I think Sony forgets that the majority of their consumers are denizens of the middle class, and that price is a big part of the console competition. Why would someone on a budget pay more to have much of the same games they could get on a system 200 dollars less? The vast majority of the middle class isn't blessed with the spare change to invest into a 1080i HD-TV, so they sure as hell don't care about Blu-Ray.

It's rather obvious that Sony is pimping Blu-Ray with the PS3, and it's a damn shame that the consumer is going to be paying for that. But it's also likely that they aren't going to.

I don't have a personal grudge against Sony, some of my favorite classics where on the PS and PS2, but I hope Sony gets bushwacked for their mistakes. If this is the direction consoles are heading, you can consider me a PC Gamer.